[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Defending GCC considered futile

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Defending GCC considered futile
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:27 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:

> On 02/10/2015 07:57 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:30:03 -0800
>>> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
>>> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, 
>>>  address@hidden
>>>>> No, actually. Because the rest of the compiler wasn't intentionally
>>>>> made non-modular, it was possible for the LLDB team to re-use the
>>>>> code from the rest of the toolchain. LLDB doesn't need things like its
>>>>> own expression parsing and interpretation code because it can call
>>>>> into Clang/LLVM at will.
>>>> Parsing source-code expression is a very small part of what GDB does.
>>>> So this is a red herring.
>>> It's also one of the most frustrating parts of GDB.
>> I guess we have very different GDB experiences and/or needs, if this
>> is a significant issue for you.  I almost never need to type complex
>> source-level expressions into a debugger.  The reason is simple:
>> almost every interesting value is already assigned to some variable,
>> so most expressions I type are simple references to variables.
> <optimized out>

Most STL structures are also sort of a nuisance to examine in gdb.
I don't actually have any point of comparison, but I would imagine that
closer ties to a compiler could help here.

Though much may be a question of how much can be stuffed into the
debugging info.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]